Remanded

Sndp Yogam Training College v. Asst.P.F.Commissioner

Kerala HC8 Feb 2013WP(C)/1643/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning Employees Provident Fund (EPF) coverage, the Kerala High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter. The court permitted the petitioner to appear before the authority with relevant documents, including appointment orders and employment records, to prove that certain employees are exempt from coverage under the Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside. Petitioner permitted to appear before the assessing authority on 4.3.2013 with appointment and salary documents to substantiate exemption claims. Appropriate order to be pas

Sndp Yogam Training College Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/19TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1643 of 2006 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

S.N.D.P.YOGAM TRAINING COLLEEGE ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER VELLAPPALLY NATESAN.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION CHALAKUZHI BUILDING, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

THE TRIBUNAL, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MUSCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, NEW DELHI.

¶12

R BY SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP SC FOR P.F.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 1643 of 2006

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXTS.

¶17

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ACQUITTANCE REGISTER DURING THE MONTH OF JULY 2000 OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2004 PASSED BY R1.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DATED 5.7.2004.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2005 ISSUED BY R1.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 TRIBUNAL EXCEPT ANNEXURES.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.9.2005 ISSUED BY R2 TRIBUNAL ON EXT.P6 APPEAL.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.12.2005 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER CONSEQUENT ON THE ISSUANCE OF EXT.P7 ORDER.
RESPONDENT	'S EXTS.
EXT.R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERAGE NOTICE DATED 4.11.2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT NO.KR/EO.KJX/MNR/COV/SNDP Y.TRG.3/391 DATED 14.10.2003.
EXT.R1(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FURNISHED BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
EXT.R1(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA COVERAGE FURNISHED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF PETITIONER INSTITUTION.
EXT.R1(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2000.
EXT.R1(f)	TRUE CDOPY OF THE SALARY REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2000.
EXT.R1(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7A NO.KR/KTM/ 20145/ENFI (4)/104 DATED 11.2.2004.
EXT.R1(h)	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF PETITIONER INSTITUTION.
EXT.R1(i)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KR/20145/EO/GS/ADLY/2005/ 628 DATED 12.1.2005 GIVEN BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.R1(j)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KR/KTM/20145.ENF.I(4)/05 DATED 3.2.2005.

Lgk

//true copy//

PA TO JUDGE

B.P.RAY, J

......................................... WP(C)No.1643 of 2006 ......................................... Dated 8^th February, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that as the petitioner is a College, the employees who have been assessed as eligible employees to be covered under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 includes Lecturers, Principal and other staff of the College. Both the assessing authority at the time of assessment and review of the matter, were of the opinion that no documents were produced by the petitioner to show that the employees are exempted employees. In order to grant opportunity to the petitioner, I set aside the impugned orders and permit the petitioner to appear before the authority on 4.3.2013, along with a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner produces relevant documents including the order of appointment and the salary drawn by the employees claiming to be exempted employees, the authority shall take into consideration the

¶25

Wpc 1643/2006

¶26

¶27

relevant documents and pass appropriate orders within

¶28

three months from the date of such appearance.

¶29

Writ petition is disposed of as above. This judgment confines only to the period covered by the impugned orders.

¶30

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶31

lgk

Sndp Yogam Training College v. Asst.P.F.Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sndp Yogam Training College v. Asst.P.F.Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.J.Paul Vs State

Malabar Cements Labour Contract Co-Op.So Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Babu A.K. Vs State

Jayachandran Vs M.G.University & Others

Veenus Plywood Company Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests and

Universal Empire Institute Vs Union of India